Three big US funds pretending to be diversification but actually just the same giant stock stew
Report created on Apr 27, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 50.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 30.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
SCHG - US8085243009 20.00%
This portfolio is three funds in a trench coat trying to pass as a balanced strategy. Half in a plain S&P 500 tracker, 30% in dividend-tilted US stocks, and 20% in US large-cap growth – all pointing at basically the same sandbox. It looks tidy on paper, but functionally it is “US large companies, but in three slightly different fonts.” Calling this “balanced” is generous; it is equity-only, US-only, and dominated by the same household names shuffled around. The structure screams convenience over intention, like someone stopped building the portfolio the second it felt familiar enough.
Growth
The historical performance is annoyingly good for something this lazy. Turning $1,000 into $4,089 with a 15.19% CAGR is rock-solid, basically neck and neck with the US market and well ahead of the global market. Max drawdown of around -33% shows this thing fully rode the COVID rollercoaster, no helmet, same as the benchmarks. But remember: CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is just the averaged speed over a road trip through wild weather. This portfolio surfed a great decade for US mega-caps; it did not prove it can dance when the music changes.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection is where reality taps this portfolio on the shoulder. Monte Carlo sims are basically “what if” machines, running thousands of alternate futures based on past volatility. Median outcome of $2,814 from $1,000 over 15 years with a wide $958–$8,242 possible range says: still equity risk, still real uncertainty. A 76% chance of finishing positive is fine, but that 24% “this might go nowhere or worse” bucket is the tax for being 100% stocks. As usual, simulations are yesterday’s weather in a different outfit – informative, but not psychic.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset class breakdown is refreshingly simple and slightly reckless: 100% stocks, 0% anything else. For something labeled “balanced,” that’s cute. There is no cushion from bonds, no dry powder in cash, no real assets lurking in the background – just a full send into equities. Being all-in on one asset class is like building a house with only glass: looks great when the sun shines, less fun in a hailstorm. When markets tank, this portfolio has nowhere to hide; it just takes the punch straight in the face with no defensive stance.
Sectors
- Technology 30%
- Health Care 12%
- Telecommunications 11%
- Financials 10%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Consumer Staples 9%
- Industrials 8%
- Energy 7%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector exposure is pretending to be broad while clearly leaning into the usual darlings. Tech at 30% is the loudest voice in the room, with everything else trailing well behind. Health care, telecom, financials, and consumer sectors are basically backup singers to the tech headliner. Utilities, materials, and real estate barely exist, like they snuck in through the fire exit. This is what happens when you stack US large-cap funds: you get a slightly differently seasoned version of the same growth-and-tech-heavy casserole. When that leadership falters, the portfolio does not exactly have a Plan B.
Regions
- North America 100%
Geographically, this portfolio has never heard of a passport. It is 100% North America, which in practice means overwhelmingly the US. No exposure to the rest of the world’s markets, currencies, or growth stories – just total faith that one country will keep carrying the entire show indefinitely. That’s fine while the US is the main character, but it is still concentration risk dressed up as confidence. Global shocks, policy changes, or long stretches of underperformance in the home market would all hit this portfolio directly, with no foreign side quests to soften the blow.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 45%
- Mega-cap 36%
- Mid-cap 17%
- Small-cap 2%
Market cap exposure is almost exactly what you’d expect from three big US equity funds: 81% in large and mega caps, a smattering of mid caps, and small caps as an afterthought at 2%. This is the stock market equivalent of only trusting brands you’ve seen on TV. The upside is fewer truly unhinged holdings; the downside is being welded to the fate of giant incumbents. If large caps underperform, there is not much in the portfolio’s structure that naturally leans into smaller, more nimble companies. It is basically “blue-chip or bust.”
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 6.19%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 5.31%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.98%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.05%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.47%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.29%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.98%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.85%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TX Texas Instruments Incorporated 1.68%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.62%
Part of fund(s):- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 30.44%
The look-through holdings scream overlap. NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla – the usual megacap Avengers – show up heavily across the ETFs. NVIDIA alone at 6.19% and Apple at 5.31% are textbook hidden concentration: not owned directly, but echoed repeatedly inside the wrappers. And keep in mind, this is only from top-10 holdings; overlap is likely even worse under the hood. This is the classic “I own three different funds” illusion, while in reality they all worship at the same tech-heavy megacap altar. One big theme, three different logos.
Factors
Factor exposure is almost suspiciously normal. Everything – value, size, momentum, quality, yield, low volatility – sits around neutral, which means this portfolio accidentally recreated “the market” in factor terms. Factors are like the hidden flavorings of returns: value, quality, momentum, etc. Here, nothing is really dialed up or down in a meaningful way. It is not smartly tilted, it is just…default. That does make behavior reasonably predictable: it should broadly move like a generic large-cap equity blend. The roast here is that for all the overlapping complexity, the factor profile is basically “shrug.”
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 50.00% 51.0% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 30.00% 25.9% -
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Weight: 20.00% 23.0%
Risk contribution lays it out brutally: your three funds are the entire story. The S&P 500 ETF is half the portfolio and just over half the risk, the dividend ETF takes less risk than its weight, and the growth ETF punches above its weight with 20% allocation but 23% risk contribution. Risk contribution is just asking “who’s actually driving the rollercoaster?” Answer: almost entirely the two broad beta funds, with extra spice from the growth sleeve. There is no stealth diversifier here; everything is either steering or loudly cheering from the same direction.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationVanguard S&P 500 ETFSchwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
The correlation section politely points out that the large-cap growth ETF and the S&P 500 ETF move almost identically. Translation: these two are basically twins wearing slightly different outfits. Correlation is just how often things move together – and these two pretty much always do. That means in a downturn, there is no cute offset where growth zigzags while the broad market zags; they both just fall together, hand in hand. Owning both is less “diversification” and more like buying two tickets to the same movie and sitting in different rows.
Risk vs. return
This chart shows the Efficient Frontier, calculated using your current assets with different allocation combinations. It highlights the best balance between risk and return based on historical data. "Efficient" portfolios maximize returns for a given risk or minimize risk for a given return. Portfolios below the curve are less efficient. This is informational and not a recommendation to buy or sell any assets.
Click on the colored dots to explore allocations.
On the efficient frontier, this portfolio actually behaves better than it looks. The Sharpe ratio of 0.67 trails the max-Sharpe version at 0.86 and even the minimum-variance option at 0.77, but the chart says it sits right on or very near the frontier. Translation: for this specific set of holdings, the mix is not dumb; the building blocks are. Reweighting among these three could squeeze more return per unit of risk, but you’re still moving chairs around on the same US large-cap deck. The efficiency is fine – the ambition is what feels small.
Dividends
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.40%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.65%
Dividend yield at 1.65% is what happens when a high-yield fund shares the stage with growth and broad market funds. The Schwab dividend ETF tries to bring a 3.4% yield to the party, but it gets watered down by growth at 0.4% and the S&P 500 at 1.1%. This isn’t a true income machine; it is more like getting a side of fries with your growth burger. If someone thought this was a “strong dividend portfolio,” the numbers politely disagree – the payout helps, but price movement is still doing most of the heavy lifting.
Ongoing product costs
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.04%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.04%
Costs are almost offensively low. A total expense ratio of 0.04% is basically couch-cushion money. The S&P 500 ETF at 0.03%, dividend ETF at 0.06%, and growth ETF at 0.04% together mean the managers are working for what amounts to loose change. Fees are one of the few things this portfolio absolutely nails – you must have clicked the right ETFs on purpose or got very lucky. The funny part is, you’re paying almost nothing to end up heavily overlapped and concentrated. At least the inefficiencies here are not compounded by expensive wrapping.
What next?
Ready to invest in this portfolio?
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
Create your own report?
Join our community!
Compare your holdings
How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?
The information provided on this platform is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial or investment advice. Insightfolio does not provide investment advice, personalized recommendations, or guidance regarding the purchase, holding, or sale of financial assets. The tools and content are intended for educational purposes only and are not tailored to individual circumstances, financial needs, or objectives.
Insightfolio assumes no liability for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information presented. Users are solely responsible for verifying the information and making independent decisions based on their own research and careful consideration. Use of the platform should not replace consultation with qualified financial professionals.
Investments involve risks. Users should be aware that the value of investments may fluctuate and that past performance is not an indicator of future results. Investment decisions should be based on personal financial goals, risk tolerance, and independent evaluation of relevant information.
Insightfolio does not endorse or guarantee the suitability of any particular financial product, security, or strategy. Any projections, forecasts, or hypothetical scenarios presented on the platform are for illustrative purposes only and are not guarantees of future outcomes.
By accessing the services, information, or content offered by Insightfolio, users acknowledge and agree to these terms of the disclaimer. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not use our platform.
Instrument logos provided by Elbstream.
Help us improve Insightfolio
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey